4 ms·

In a similar vein, I thought of the comic on how software companies are organized. https://bonkersworld.net/organizational-charts https://bonkersworld.net/orga

In a similar vein, I thought of the comic on how software companies are organized. https://bonkersworld.net/organizational-charts https://bonkersworld.net/organizational-charts

Quarrelsome 4y ago
is there much truth to these patterns? I've never worked for FAANG so am unaware of their structures.
- timidger 4y ago
  It was probably very true 10 years ago, for some of them it has become less true
- porbelm 4y ago
  The Microsoft one was VERY true, at least until the mid 2K's. Small groups with lots of middle managers, bad communication, and hatred towards the other small groups. Dunno how it is now though.
  - jiggawatts 4y ago
    Worse.
  - threeseed 4y ago
    http://minimsft.blogspot.com http://minimsft.blogspot.com is highly recommended for a view into this era.
- Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
  For MS, it was definitely true when there was the policy of firing the bottom 10% every year or something like that. It created extremely perverse incentives where nobody wanted to help each other or would even go as far as to sabotage other people's work in order to make sure they're not on the bottom. Some managers would hire people with the intent to fire them later.
- threeseed 4y ago
  Apple these days is very traditional with the SLT comprising the various VPs and everyone reporting to them via middle management layers. In the period where Steve Jobs was not CEO it was a lot more like Microsoft with the various geographical divisions e.g. EMEA, AMR in particular having their own fiefdoms and starting wars with each other. And then of course the ridiculous number of skunkworks projects that would compete with other teams.
- complex_exp 4y ago
  Looks about right for Google, but then which software company doesn't look like that?
dx034 4y ago
Honest question for those who have worked at several software companies: What works best? The chart displayed with Google with lots of connections but also a lot of complexity, or the "traditional" Amazon chart?

In a similar vein, I thought of the comic on how software companies are organized. https://bonkersworld.net/organizational-charts https://bonkersworld.net/organizational-charts

Quarrelsome 4y ago

is there much truth to these patterns? I've never worked for FAANG so am unaware of their structures.

timidger 4y ago
It was probably very true 10 years ago, for some of them it has become less true
porbelm 4y ago
The Microsoft one was VERY true, at least until the mid 2K's. Small groups with lots of middle managers, bad communication, and hatred towards the other small groups. Dunno how it is now though.
- jiggawatts 4y ago
  Worse.
- threeseed 4y ago
  http://minimsft.blogspot.com http://minimsft.blogspot.com is highly recommended for a view into this era.
Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
For MS, it was definitely true when there was the policy of firing the bottom 10% every year or something like that. It created extremely perverse incentives where nobody wanted to help each other or would even go as far as to sabotage other people's work in order to make sure they're not on the bottom. Some managers would hire people with the intent to fire them later.
threeseed 4y ago
Apple these days is very traditional with the SLT comprising the various VPs and everyone reporting to them via middle management layers. In the period where Steve Jobs was not CEO it was a lot more like Microsoft with the various geographical divisions e.g. EMEA, AMR in particular having their own fiefdoms and starting wars with each other. And then of course the ridiculous number of skunkworks projects that would compete with other teams.
complex_exp 4y ago
Looks about right for Google, but then which software company doesn't look like that?

dx034 4y ago

Honest question for those who have worked at several software companies: What works best? The chart displayed with Google with lots of connections but also a lot of complexity, or the "traditional" Amazon chart?